Wildlife in Hot Water: Philadelphia Edition

This is the first in a multi-part series localizing the National Wildlife Federation's (NWF) recent report, Wildlife in Hot Water: America’s Waterways and Climate Change.

Last week, PennFuture joined the NWF in Scranton to release its new report, which examines the affects climate change is having on wildlife and the nation’s waterways. 

The report details the rapid changes to the Earth’s water cycle that are already having negative impacts on ecosystems. As a result of disruptive carbon pollution, these changes include earlier and more rapid snowmelt, fewer and more intense rainfall events, and more frequent and extreme droughts and floods. The very character, chemistry, and quality of our waterways are changing in some of the following ways: 

• Reduced dissolved oxygen levels in streams and lakes
• Loss of habitat for cold and cool water fish species as climate change is prompting warmer temperatures
• Loss of wetlands and reduced riparian/floodplain connectivity
• Loss of upstream/downstream connectivity caused by the drying of stream and river reaches
• Reduced extent, diversity, and quality of in-stream habitat for aquatic biota
• Increased pollutant concentrations from urban and agricultural runoff

These effects are already being felt throughout Pennsylvania. Last Wednesday, speakers at our press event discussed the negative effects of climate change on water and wildlife in the Lackawanna and Susquehanna Rivers. But northeast Pennsylvania isn’t the only region of the commonwealth feeling these effects. The City of Philadelphia, bordered by two tidal rivers, is particularly at risk to sea level rise and extreme weather events. 

Flooding on Kelly Drive in Philadelphia

Some findings concerning Philadelphia and climate change-related flooding:

• According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), nuisance flooding in Philadelphia – think road closures, overwhelmed storm drains, and infrastructure damage – has increased by 650 percent over the past 50 years. This significant increase is due to many factors, including climate-related sea level rise. NOAA concluded in its report that acceleration in sea level rise “will further intensify nuisance flooding impacts over time, and will further reduce the time between flood events.” 
• Sea levels in the Delaware Estuary have already risen by about a foot in the last century and experts expect to experience a rise of at last three more feet within ninety years.
• A report from the Union of Concerned Scientists projects that over the next thirty years tidal flooding events in Philadelphia will grow in frequency from 19 to 200 per year.
• The National Weather Service’s Sea, Lake, and Overland Surge from Hurricanes (SLOSH) model shows the that large sections of Philadelphia would be inundated if a Category 1 or 2 hurricane were to directly impact the region. In particular, southwest Philadelphia, which includes the Eastwick neighborhood as well as Philadelphia International Airport, would be particularly vulnerable to surge flooding where water levels would be higher than the elevation of the area. In an op-ed in Plan Philly’s Eyes on the Street blog, author Amy Laura Cahn shares that during Hurricane Floyd, “Eastwick’s slab-on-grade homes filled with six feet of water.” As a result, Eastwick residents have experienced spikes in the cost of flood insurance. 

Without climate action, it is expected that the rate of sea level rise will accelerate and extreme weather events will occur with greater frequency. Fortunately, there are many options for combating the causes of climate change while simultaneously preserving and protecting wildlife and the waterways they depend on, including: 

• Supporting the Clean Power Plan and reducing our carbon footprint: The Environment Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan is an important step first step toward mitigating climate change. The plan presents opportunities to not only reduce carbon pollution from existing power plants, but to also invest in a zero-carbon, clean energy future. The commonwealth should expand upon its existing wind, solar, and energy efficiency programs to meet our reduction goals in a manner that is both cost-effective and emissions-neutral. 
• Encouraging Clean Water Act Protections: In order to better protect our wildlife and waters, support for the Clean Water Rule is essential. Without this rule, at least 60 percent of America’s streams and 20 million acres of wetlands would be left vulnerable to the destructive hands of industrial activities. 

In the coming weeks, we plan to share more region-specific stories that underscore the need to act on climate to protect our waterways and wildlife. Stay tuned!

Katie Bartolotta is southeastern Pennsylvania outreach coordinator for PennFuture and is based in Philadelphia. She tweets @KatieBartolotta.  

VICTORY for clean water in Pennsylvania -- again!!

The plan to clean up the Chesapeake Bay has survived a second attempt to quash it. This is a big win, not just for the Bay and the ongoing efforts for its restoration but also for the Pennsylvania streams and rivers that are being cleaned up as part of that restoration work.

In 2013, Federal Judge Sylvia Rambo rejected the arguments made by big agricultural and developers' lobby groups that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had exceeded its authority when it developed the Chesapeake Bay TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load), or pollution diet, in 2010. These same deep-pocketed lobby groups appealed this decision -- and lost again.

On Monday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed Judge Rambo’s decision and ruled that the Bay TMDL is fully authorized by the Clean Water Act. This victory makes it clear that Pennsylvania and the other Bay states should continue -- even accelerate -- the work they have done to reduce water pollution.  

Pennsylvania has thousands of miles of polluted streams and rivers where residents cannot fish or swim or enjoy the economic and environmental benefits of clean water. After two failed legal challenges, we can only hope that more time and money won’t be wasted on legal challenges as there’s a lot of work to be done and money could be better spent on outreach and education, technical assistance to farmers, and implementation of conservation practices.

PennFuture, along with other environmental groups, was an intervener in both cases.

Jen Quinn is central Pennsylvania outreach coordinator for PennFuture and is based in Harrisburg. She tweets @QuinnJen1.

Small but mighty: Streams and wetlands that matter

This guest post was written by Tori Leach. Tori is the online membership and marketing coordinator for the National Wildlife Federation, for which PennFuture is the Pennsylvania state affiliate.

Marshes, wetlands, intermittent streams, and even some lakes fill from rainwater or snowmelt then empty through evaporation—coming and going throughout the year. These small but mighty habitats filter out pollution, ease the effects of flooding, and provide water for wildlife in dry climates.

These habitats, called ephemeral bodies of water, are critical for many species, but small streams and wetlands are at risk and need our help.

Here are a few examples of wildlife that need these on-again, off-again waters!

Three river otters. By James "Newt" Perdue, USFWS

River otters are playful semi-aquatic mammals who spend a lot of time in the water – they can even hold their breath for up to eight minutes! They make their homes near many types of water, including marshes and wetlands. However, they are extremely sensitive to water pollution, which in tandem with unregulated trapping and hunting, had diminished their numbers in the past. Their numbers are coming back strong, but clean water is key to their survival.

Pronghorn are the fastest land animal in North America, and can reach a peak speed of 60 miles an hour. So while they won’t beat a cheetah in a sprint, they can maintain their speed for much longer. In Wyoming, around 400 pronghorn migrate from the Grand Teton National Park to the Upper Green Basin for the winter. During the 150 mile journey, they rely on bodies of water like terminal basins, which are closed, standing bodies of water. These are important for both the water they provide and the food from the ecosystem of terminal basins.

Pronghorn running. Photo by Kathy Gervais

Bighorn Sheep. Courtesy of the National Park Service

Bighorn sheep are known for -- you guessed it -- their big horns! The male horns can weigh up to 30 pounds, and some can grow to over three feet long. In California, federally-listed bighorn sheep rely on pools of standing water called tenajas as a key source of water in an otherwise arid and hot climate. Desert bighorn sheep tend to live within 2-3 miles of water, so the disappearance of any of these tenajas would threaten the species’ survival.

A few species of salamanders have adapted to the changing life of living in a vernal pool, a temporary pool that usually fills in the spring and evaporates depending upon the weather, but often contains water well into the summer. While adult salamanders live on dry land, during the spring they will go to a vernal pool to lay their eggs, which will develop and hatch during the summer. If the pool lasts long enough, the young salamanders will grow and emerge to become terrestrial animals. One cool thing about these salamander eggs is that they contain green algae, so that when the embryonic salamander produces carbon dioxide, it turns it into oxygen that the embryo can use.

Spotted salamander. Courtesy of the National Park Service

American avocets are migratory birds that use ephemeral waters as their pit stops along their migratory path. Prairie pothole wetlands are often frequented by avocets. These “potholes” provide a shallow habitat for avocets to search for food as well as to nest in the spring. Their chicks are quick learners – within 24 hours after hatching, they can already walk, swim, and dive to avoid predators!

American avocet and chicks. Photo by: Andrew Lee

In its 2008 Ephemeral Streams report, the U.S. EPA estimates that these types of waters make up about 59 percent of all streams in the United States (except Alaska). For more than a decade, Clean Water Act protections for these waters have been uncertain, putting them at increased risk of pollution and destruction.

But you have a chance to change that. A bill that would allow polluters free rein in these bodies of water is coming to a vote this week. You can do your part to protect these and hundreds more species by urging members of Congress to oppose this attack on the Clean Water Act.

Be a voice for the wildlife that depend on water—urge your members of Congress to oppose attacks to the Clean WaterAct.

Setting the record straight on Waters of the U.S.

This guest post is from Nancy Stoner, Acting Assistant Administrator for Water at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

There’s been some confusion about EPA and the Corps’ proposed “Waters of the U.S.” rule under the Clean Water Act, especially in the agriculture community, and we want to make sure you know the facts.

We know that we haven’t had the best relationship with the agriculture industry in the past, but that doesn’t mean we aren’t and we can’t do better. We are committed to listening to farmers and ranchers and in fact, our proposed rule takes their feedback into account.

The rule keeps intact all Clean Water Act exemptions and exclusions for agriculture that farmers count on. But it does more for farmers by actually expanding the list of up-front exemptions. We worked with USDA’s Natural Resource Conservation Service and the Army Corps of Engineers to exempt 56 additional conservation practices. These practices are familiar to many farmers, who know their benefits to business, the land, and water resources.

Farmers and ranchers are on the land every day, and they are our nation’s original conservationists. The American agriculture economy is the envy of the world, and today’s farmers and ranchers are global business professionals—relying on up-to-the-minute science to make decisions about when to plant, fertilize, and irrigate crops.

Both EPA and farmers make decisions based on facts—so here are the facts about the proposal.When Congress passed the Clean Water Act in 1972, it didn’t just defend the mighty Mississippi or our Great Lakes; it also protected the smaller streams and wetlands that weave together a vast, interconnected system. It recognized that healthy families and farms downstream depend on healthy headwaters upstream. But two Supreme Court cases over the last 15 years confused things, making it unclear which waters are “in,” and which are “out.”

That confusion added red tape, time, and expense to the permitting process under the Clean Water Act. The Army Corps of Engineers had to make case-by-case decisions about which waters were protected, and decisions in different parts of the country became inconsistent.

So EPA and the Corps are bringing clarity and consistency to the process, cutting red tape and saving money. The proposed Waters of the U.S. rule does not regulate new types of ditches, does not regulate activities on land, and does not apply to groundwater. The proposal does not change the exemption for stock ponds, does not require permits for normal farming activities like moving cattle, and does not regulate puddles.

The agencies’ goals align with those of farmers: Clean water fuels agriculture—and we all depend on the food, fuel, and fiber that our farmers produce. We at EPA and the Corps welcome input on the proposed rule to make sure we get it right.

Here are clarifications on a few points of confusion about the proposed rule. For further information, check out: http://www2.epa.gov/newsroom/questions-and-answers-about-waters-us

The EPA and the Army Corps are NOT going to have greater power over water on farms and ranches.

• The Clean Water Act and its regulations have multiple exclusions and exemptions from jurisdiction and permit requirements. The proposed rule does not change or limit any of them.
• The agencies also worked with USDA to develop and publish through an interpretive rule, a list of NRCS agricultural conservation practices that will not be subject to CWA permitting requirements. These practices encourage conservation while protecting and improving water quality.

The proposed rule will NOT bring all ditches on farms under federal jurisdiction.

• Some ditches have been regulated under the Clean Water Act since the 1970s.
• The proposed rule does not expand jurisdiction.
• For the first time, the agencies are clarifying that all ditches that are constructed in dry lands, that drain only dry lands, and don’t flow all year, are not “waters of the U.S.” This includes many roadside ditches, and many ditches collecting runoff or drainage from crop fields.
  • Ditches that are IN are generally those that are essentially human-altered streams, which feed the health and quality of larger downstream waters. The agencies have always regulated these types of ditches.
  • Ditches that are OUT are those that are dug in dry lands and don’t flow all the time, or don’t flow into a jurisdictional water.
• Farmers, ranchers and foresters continue to receive their exemptions from Clean Water Act Section 404 permitting requirements when they construct and maintain their ditches, even if ditches are jurisdictional.

The proposed rule does NOT mean permits are needed for walking cows across a wet field or stream.

• Normal farming and ranching activities are not regulated under the Clean Water Act.

The proposed rule will NOT apply to wet areas on fields or erosional features on fields.

• Wet areas on crop fields are not jurisdictional.
• The proposal specifically excludes erosional features from being “waters of the U.S.”

EPA and the Corps are NOT taking control of ponds in the middle of the farm.

• The proposed rule does not change existing practice regarding farm ponds.
• The rule does not affect the existing exemption Congress created under section 404 for construction and maintenance of farm or stock ponds.
• The proposed rule would for the first time specifically exclude stock watering ponds from jurisdiction in rule language.

EPA rule will protect water resources nationwide

On Tuesday, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Army Corps of Engineers jointly released a proposed rule that would clarify the muddied jurisdictional waters of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and restore Clean Water Act protections to countless streams and wetlands throughout the Commonwealth and the nation.

The scope of the Clean Water Act was intended to be as broad as its purpose: “To restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters” with a national goal of all waters being fishable and swimmable. Over the past decade, however, two Supreme Court decisions have reduced protections and caused confusion about which waters and wetlands are protected by the Clean Water Act.

Specifically, the proposed rule clarifies that under the Clean Water Act and based on the science:

•              Most seasonal and rain dependent streams are protected.

•              Wetlands near rivers and streams are protected.

•              Other types of waters may have more uncertain connections with downstream water, and protection will be evaluated through a case specific analysis.

Streams and wetlands provide numerous benefits to communities, including reduced flooding, recharge of groundwater, removal of pollution, and habitat for fish and wildlife. Roughly 58 percent of stream miles in Pennsylvania only flow seasonally or after rainfall, and over 8 million Pennsylvanians get their drinking water from systems that rely, at least in part, on these streams.

This rule does not broaden the reach of the EPA or expand the scope of waters historically protected under the CWA. Instead, the proposed rule clarifies protections for about two million miles of streams and 20 million acres of wetlands based on sound science. Once finalized, this rule will provide greater long-term certainty for landowners and protect the streams, wetlands and other waters that feed our nation’s rivers, lakes, and bays. Visit www2.epa.gov/uswaters to learn more about the rule and how you can provide comments.

Jen Quinn is central Pennsylvania outreach coordinator for PennFuture and is based in Harrisburg.

Crisis in West Virginia's waterways

This guest post is from Angie Rosser, Executive Director of the West Virginia Rivers Coalition and a fellow Steering Committee member of the Choose Clean Water Coalition.     --Kate Gibbons, northeast Pennsylvania outreach coordinator, PennFuture

I'm one of 300,000 West Virginians who learned their water had been contaminated by a chemical leak just upstream from the state's largest drinking-water intake. Predictably, politicians and the public are clamoring for heads to roll -- most notably, those of managers at the Freedom Industries plant responsible for the leak.

Freedom Industries should be held accountable, but that won't fix the problem. That's because the Elk River spill wasn't an isolated accident. It was the inevitable consequence of weak regulatory enforcement over many years, made possible by our collective failure to uphold the values we profess.

We all say we value clean water, so why do we accept pollution as the status quo, as a byproduct of everyday life? In public opinion polls, Americans routinely and overwhelmingly say it's the job of government to ensure clean water. And yet, we continue to let elected officials off the hook when it comes to clean water laws.

In this light, the Elk River leak could be the future of many American cities -- a future in which systems failures cause local catastrophic events, leaving taxpayers to foot the bill to clean up after polluters.

Since the earliest days of the chemical industry, it has been a major part of West Virginia's economy. We live every day with the potential for toxic leaks into our waterways, knowing the consequences can be devastating. We shouldn't have to live this way.

Since the passage of the Clean Water Act in 1972, industry has worked diligently to weaken the law's enforcement and oversight.

As director of an organization that advocates for clean water, I regularly witness the audacious influence of industry as it cajoles lawmakers and regulators to lower production costs by lowering the bar on public health. I review the same data as the politicians do on the risks to public health posed by weakening clean-water standards. But when it comes to environmental stewardship, data and facts are no match for industry's sway over government.

At times like these, I see the irony of politicians scapegoating a company whose pollution is enabled by government's failure to adequately regulate. We've allowed them to foster a culture of neglect instead of one of oversight and accountability.

The Mountain State enjoys an abundance of water but, year after year, we have seen access to clean water diminish. Our water has paid the price for our legacy of mining, gas drilling, coal-burning power plants, and chemical production. We have seen the steady chipping away of our water quality standards to help reduce costs to big coal. We have seen the injustices of people's right to clean water usurped by industries. Indeed, there are parts of West Virginia that will never have access to clean water, where industrial pollution has caused irreparable harm to water supplies.

I hope the West Virginia water crisis reminds us about how dependent we are on clean rivers for our health and security. Now is the time to take a critical look at how to better protect our water sources. We can do this only by acknowledging that the Elk River spill is not a story about an isolated leak. This is about the need for systemic changes in industrial practices, and our national responsibility to establish and enforce adequate protections.

We need to look at ourselves and remember our values. We need to be true to our relationship with water by expanding our expectations of elected leaders. And industries and consumers need to accept the costs of safer, more environmentally sound production of certain goods and services. That's the price of clean water.

Clean water is essential for life. It is also essential for our national and global security. I hope that once the immediate crisis is over, serious thought will go into meaningful reforms and investment in protecting the rivers and streams that are our lifeline.

Angie Rosser is executive director of the West Virginia Rivers Coalition in Charleston, a statewide nonprofit organization focused on water quality issues. She lives on the Elk River upstream from the spill. In 2013, she was part of a successful effort to secure endangered species status for the Elk River Diamond Darter, a fish found only in the Elk.

Clearing the way for clean water

     In September, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released the report Connectivity of Streams and Wetlands to Downstream Waters:A Review and Synthesis of the Scientific Evidence (draft) for public comment. This report will serve as scientific support for an upcoming EPA rulemaking to clarify the muddied jurisdictional waters of the Clean Water Act (CWA).

     The scope of the CWA was intended to be as broad as its purpose: to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.” The Clean Water Act sought to achieve this goal by reducing the discharge of pollutants into streams, lakes, rivers, wetlands and other waterways. In particular, Section 404 of the CWA regulates the discharge of dredged and fill materials into “navigable waters” of the United States, which established the basis for federal protection of our nation's wetlands.

     Over the past decade, however, a series of Supreme Court decisions interpreting the definition of "navigable waters" have removed some waters from federal protection, and caused confusion about which waters and wetlands remain protected. Among other things, the decisions clouded whether certain wetlands had a sufficient connection to downstream waters so as to allow the federal government to protect those wetlands. 

     In response to these decisions, the EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers developed a draft rule to clarify the federal government's jurisdiction over wetlands under the Clean Water Act. And that's where the Connectivity Report comes in. 

     The Report reviews more than 1,000 peer reviewed pieces of scientific literature, and will form the scientific basis that supports the new rule. Its main conclusions are:

• Streams, regardless of their size or how frequently they flow, are connected to, and have important effects, on downstream waters.


• Wetlands and open waters in floodplains of streams and rivers, and in riparian areas, are integrated with streams and rivers.

    Waters are connected! Who would have guessed? I think many of us have believed this for quite some time, but now we have the science to prove it.

This new rule should eliminate the uncertainty around the CWA’s jurisdiction and allow it to fulfill its purpose by protecting streams and wetlands from pollution and development.

Getting to the point -- and nonpoint

In the wake of Judge Sylvia Rambo's September 13 decision upholding the Chesapeake Bay TMDL (read: Bay pollution "diet"), and its subsequent appeal less than a month later, you've probably heard the words "point source" and "nonpoint source" more than a few times. But what do these terms mean? Well, a point source (of pollution), as defined by the Clean Water Act, is "any discernible, confined, and discrete conveyance." For example, a pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, well, or container can be a point source, just to name a few. Given that definition, you'd think the definition for a nonpoint source (of pollution) would be equally technical and concise. However, you would be wrong. A nonpoint source is any source of water pollution that does not meet the legal definition of a point source. Is that clear? About as clear as mud. It is pollution from everywhere else.

http://soilscience.info

Nonpoint source pollution is caused by rainfall and snowmelt moving over and through the ground. Picture a farmer's field, your own lawn or driveway, or a parking lot. As the runoff moves, it picks up and carries excess fertilizers, pesticides, oil, grease, salt, sediment, and whatever else may be on the ground, to our rivers, lakes and ground waters.

Photo by halseide

Nonpoint source pollution remains Pennsylvania's, and the nation's, largest contributor to water quality problems. It's why 20 percent of Pennsylvania's streams and 50 percent of its lakes are polluted. And that's why the Chesapeake Bay TMDL is so important. The Bay's pollution diet sets limits for the amount of pollutants that can enter the Bay and the only way to achieve those limits is to significantly reduce the amount of nonpoint source pollution in the Bay's tributaries. 

   The Clean Water Act (CWA) has done a pretty good job of regulating point source pollutants. The Cuyahoga River is no longer flammable and Lake Erie is no longer dead, thanks to the CWA. But it hasn't done a whole lot to regulate nonpoint sources because nonpoint source regulation has been left largely to the states with little federal oversight. However, developing the Bay pollution diet required the states and federal government to work together to set pollution limits, develop watershed implementation plans, and milestones to track progress.

This cooperative federalism, and resulting TMDL, represents the best chance for clean water in Pennsylvania and the Chesapeake Bay.